James White has responded to my response.
YOU CAN READ HIS RESPONSE HERE.
Unfortunately, Mr. White wrote his response without having seen the first of the two posts I wrote yesterday.
This is evident from two facts:
1) He makes no effort to modify his ad hominem/insult/jab style of apologetics.
For example, he writes:
How amazing! Does Mr. Akin truly believe his audience will either 1) completely trust him so that they will not even consider what I have written, or 2) blindly ignore the glaring misrepresentation he presents, which flies in the face once again of all my published works wherein I have discussed the relationship between Scripture and lesser authorities, again for over a decade? I am left wondering just who it is Mr. Akin is writing for. Surely it is not for anyone who is listening to both sides!
2) He repeatedly indicates that he is under the impression that the post that occasioned this exchange was responding to him.
For example, he writes:
Akin chose to attempt to address a question about my view of the Corban rule.
He also says that he is perplexed by things that he would have understood if he had seen the first post.
So he simply didn’t see it. I’d assumed he would, but he didn’t.
Now, I’m not going to kick a man when he’s down. This isn’t a situation of soldiers in mortal combat, where your duty is to exploit your opponent’s weaknesses in order to win. This is meant to be an intellectual exchange designed to get at the truth. It’s about truth, not winning.
So I’m not going to try to exploit the fact that White is missing some important information here and that partly shapes his response.
Instead, I want to do the most gentlemanly thing I can, which is to point out the existence of the first post and then give James a chance to modify his response before I interact with it.
He may wish to edit his existing post or he may wish to compose a new, supplementary post, or he may wish to do nothing. If he does the latter, though, I’d ask that he e-mail me so that I’ll know that he’d like to let his existing reply stand.
White also indicated–if I read him right–that he was perplexed by the structure of my argument, so I’ll provide a brief summary here in case that helps him reformulate his response. It’s in the below-the-fold section of this post.
One thing I want to ask is that the readers don’t make snarky comments in the combox about the fact that James missed the first post. No "James White hasn’t done his homework. Haw-haw," stuff, please. He simply didn’t see it. Let’s let him have a chance to read it and then reformulate his response in a dignified manner.
Thanks.
My argument begins by identifying Mr. White’s major claim, which I quote as follows:
Jesus’ plain teaching that we are to examine all traditions by the
higher standard of God’s Word, even those that claim to be divine in
origin.
For the sake of simplicity, I then reformulate this as:
Jesus’ plain teaching [is] that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture].
White here asserts that Jesus has issued a "plain teaching." Now, I know from my own history of having been certain that a passage meant one thing–that it plainly taught it–only to conclude later that I was wrong and that the passage either taught something else or that it doesn’t clearly teach what I thought it did. It is easy for someone with passionate doctrinal commitments to fall into the trap of being convinced a passage clearly teaches something when in reality it doesn’t. I know. I’ve been in that trap.
When I’ve been in that condition, I have not been prepared to acknowledge the force of good evidence that the passage meant something else. I needed to have my horizons broadened a bit first before I would be able to acknowledge that. I needed to start seeing other possibilities about what the passage might mean before I would be ready to acknowledge the evidence that would show me my initial conclusion was wrong.
This is a normal, human, psychological phenomenon. C. S. Lewis referred to it as "obstinacy in belief," and it’s a good thing that we have it, because it is what keeps us from being "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine." If we had to conduct a thorough re-evaluation a belief every time we were presented with a piece of contrary evidence, we’d be revising our beliefs every minute and never get anything done, which isn’t what God intends. As a result, when we encounter a piece of evidence that runs counter to a belief we feel strongly about, we tend not to register the force of that evidence. It is only as the evidence starts mounting that we start getting uncertain about our conclusion.
I therefore began my post with a section devoted to showing that Mr. White’s claim is not a clear teaching of Jesus.
This is important for two reasons:
1) If Mr. White is wrong and Mark 7 does not provide a clear teaching then that means that the passage might teach something else, in which case it doesn’t prove what Mr. White wants and can’t be appealed to as a prooftext.
2) Having seen that the passage does not clearly teach Mr. White’s assertion, the reader will be better prepared to accept the evidence I offer that Mr. White’s interpretation of the passage is, in fact, demonstrably false.
I therefore began by asking what mode of teaching Jesus is using here (direct statement, veiled statement, or example) and concluding it was the last.
I then noted that there are significant problems in deriving a clear teaching from a passage where the teaching is given by example, because one often can’t be sure the extent to which the example is meant to be followed. So White will have a hard time deriving a clear teaching from this text.
Having noted this problem, I then do what I always do when trying to figure out what a passage means: Ask what it hypothetically could mean. This exercise is essential to good exegesis because it has the advantage that it opens our eyes to possibilities we didn’t see when we first read the text. If we conclude that our first impression was the obvious one and don’t do this exercise, we are likely to miss the true meaning. What we need to do as exegetes if first ask what a text might mean and then start eliminating bad possibilities so that we have a better sense of what the text probably means, and hopefully we will arrive at a conclusion about what it does (or at least does not) mean.
I thus offer a list of possibilities of what Jesus may be intending to teach by his example.
In preparing this list, I also reformulate the issue to avoid a time-wasting detour. Mr. White originally phrased matters in terms of "examining" traditions against Scripture. What he means by this, I assume, is judging to be false any traditions that are inconsistent with Scripture, such as the custom of declaring what you owed your parents to be korban.
This formulation of the issue does not get at the heart of the issue between Catholics and Protestants. Both Catholics and Protestants can agree that if a tradition is contrary to Scripture then it is false. That’s not big news.
The next question is how one regards traditions that are not demonstrably contrary to Scripture. Here Catholics and Protestants also can agree that some of these traditions are permitted to believers but not mandatory for them (e.g., the custom of having pews and pulpits in churches). So that is not news either.
The real point of difference between Catholics and Protestants–or at least Protestants of Mr. White’s school–is whether any of these traditions are divinely authoritative and thus mandatory for believers.
We don’t need to argue about the first two points, because we are in agreement on them. It is the third point that is the real issue, and so I chose to refocus the argument on that one.
In the process, I showed that there were a number of possibilities about what Jesus might have meant his example to teach in this passage and thus that it does not provide a clear teaching that all extrascriptural traditions are non-authoritative.
Having done this, I delivered what to my mind is positive proof that Jesus did not mean to teach his audience this by his example, because he could not have done so without undercutting the force of his own oral extrascriptural traditions.
If Mr. White wishes to maintain that all extrascriptural traditions are non-authoritative (at least today) then he will have to argue this on grounds other than what Jesus meant to teach by his example in the korban incident.
I then concluded with a section to answer a few lingering questions that the reader might have, though the point remains that Mark 7 does not show to be false the Catholic claim that there are extrascriptural traditions that are divinely authoritative.
Hope this helps!
Jimmy, you are a class act. This post is like the moment in a movie duel where one opponent drops his sword and the other guy stands back and lets him pick it up before continuing. Let’s see how Mr. White responds.
Your explanation of the holes in Mr. White’s Corban argument was spot-on Jimmy.
I hate to see you waste your breath further responding to him, though. I can’t help but think that your notice of him only enhances his reputation, which would be a shame.
“White also indicated–if I read him right–that he was perplexed by the structure of my argument…”
Try typing more slowly Jimmy. Use small words.
So, Jimmy, when do you shake the dust from your feet on this one?
I’ll give it one or two more go-rounds, probably.
Hi Mr. Akin,
I want to thank you for your comment to keep things very civil.
I, being a Roman Catholic, see some of the other Catholic apologists out there who do resort to Ad Hominum, and this upsets me.
I understand that people’s emotions can get to them, but with many of the apologists (Catholic and Protestant) I do not see any love in their interactions. That, I believe, is the most important ingredient in all things Christian.
Many may point to the likes of Saint Jerome who would refer to some of his opponents as “sickophants” (please forgive my spelling).
But none of us are Saint Jerome nor should we resort to any lack of love in all our dealings.
I disagree with much of Dr. White’s writtings in regards to Roman Catholicism, but that should not give anyone the right to degrade the man.
So thank you for your excellent work and I look forward to your further interactions with Dr. White’s work.
Jimmy Akin’s patience in dealing with this guy is very admirable.
Hi Jimmy, James White has been on a writting sabatical with limited internet access. I learned this from his Blog last week. That might explain why he hasn’t responded yet. I have a great respect for you and look forward to future interaction between you and Dr.White.
He responded to the other two pretty quickly. ~:/
“Jimmy Akin’s patience in dealing with this guy is very admirable.”
It’s like watching Mr. Spock in discussion with a Klingon.
How are the comments being made about Mr. White any different from those he makes about others?
Wow shane, the old eye for an eye argument?
Actually I was trying to suggest that if the other posters truly feel that Mr. White is uncharitable in his writing style, then it is hypocrisy to respond by making uncharitable statements about Mr. White.
“Your explanation of the holes in Mr. White’s Corban argument was spot-on Jimmy.
I hate to see you waste your breath further responding to him, though. I can’t help but think that your notice of him only enhances his reputation, which would be a shame.”
I would like to point out something that someone pointed out previously, of course I do so in my own words, the point of debates such as this one is not for the benefit of the one debating so that he may show himself to be oh so mighty of a swordsman etc etc etc…..
The point is so that those observing may make an informed descision. I am not a Roman Catholic, and cannot rightly call myself a reformed protestant since I don’t even attend a reformed protestant church. Don’t get me wrong, I lean strongly toward protestant theology because I have become more and more convinced of it from my studies.
But regardless, I must make an informed descision. I need to give RC a fair hearing and RP a fair hearing. But one thing that disturbes me so greatly is the constant ad-hominen I observe from my sidelines point of view or that I observe when engaging with many catholics on the topics. Not all catholics have answered me using ad-hominen, but most do. Most are sarcastic, rude, circular, evasisve. However I have met with a few who are decent and provide considerate argumentation. Even if I don’t agree with their final conclusion, I sometimes come out more informed. Where that leads is not real clear yet. But It is better to be accurately informed.
I see folks like James White and Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating engaging in ad-hominen. But I am not going to set myself up to judge between them as to who engages in it the most. One thing is for sure, the folks who engage in ad-hominen the most are the ones who stand on the sidelines rooting for their hero and throwing out insults at their enemy.
For what it is worth, ad-hominen is absolutly stupid to an informed reader such as myself. I can see right through it, and I know it adds absolutly nothing to help me consider who is right on what. It may however cause me to ignore those who use it. I am no idiot. If it clouds my ability to make an informed descision, then I am not interested in the argument.
Whenever I read catholic discussions boards, this type of ad-hominen is so througly interwoven through out that it sickens me. And I would have to agree with one of JW assertions regarding ad-hominen: It is provided when the person using it has nothing better to say.
If you are really interested in being a service to folks then you will encourage debate for the benefit of the hearer and not for the glory of the great swordsman.
But then again is this the Roman Catholic way?
Jeff
sorry for typo, I meant: hominem
Jeff, please don’t judge either side of the discussion on the comments people make. Unfortunately, we are all fallen human beings who so often wield our members to sin. I am saddened by it.
However, we must focus on the arguements, realizing that their merits do not derive from the sanctity of those presenting them. Yet we must realize that all sin is merely the perversion of a true good, an effort to reach for the good, yet an effort perverted by sin and by Satan’s power over this world. By God’s abundant Grace we may see, through the dirt encrusted, darkened glass of these particular sins, the beautiful sight which makes all the host of Heavenly angels, all cherubim and seraphim, all the armies of martyrs, prophets, and saints rejoice, that sight of souls reaching for the eternal God, hoping to grasp Him by the truth which He Himself consists of. In this, then, can we see the true souls in these arguements, and in this can we ourselves partake of God’s mystery and revelation, a revelation manifest both in words and in love, though it be hidden.
“Whenever I read catholic discussions boards, this type of ad-hominen is so througly interwoven through out that it sickens me.”
Jeff, I get the same feeling when I visit non-Catholic boards. I don’t take it against those people. We are all just bantering around the same way we would if we were face to face and hanging around, tossing ideas in the air. The fact that we have to write down our thoughts doesn’t mean we alwasy have to take them all seriously. IMHO.
Francis,
I am not reading a protestant discussion forum right? It is a catholic one. So I am directing my post to catholics. But I wont disagree that it is limited to catholics. Your right, it is on protestant or non-catholic boards. In fact I get it from all sides… Some folks are just encapable of relying upon decent debate or discussion.
Of course some are just straight up not capable of recognizing correctives either. I mean sometimes u cant continue a discussion or debate with a person till u call them out on some things. That is understood.
In anycase your point seems to be one of ‘just get over it’. I can agree whole heartedly. But at the same time I refuse to refrain from pointing it out. I engage in discussions with folks without relying on ad hominem. So I can’t excuse folks for it. Doesn’t take a perfect person to act decent…
Jeff
“In anycase your point seems to be one of ‘just get over it’.
Actually more like “we are real people, not yet angels”, so please be understanding when some of my colleagues act this way. (I’m sure I’m never guilty).
I would also say you are right in refusing to refrain, because at the same time we are not just ordinary humans, but ‘new creatures’, and we are called to a higher standard, even though some of my fellow commenters here fail (me, never).
😉
“I am not reading a protestant discussion forum right? It is a catholic one.”
Just to clarify: What I meant was that I get the same feeling you get when reading Catholic boards, whenever I visit non-Catholic boards.
I don’t think that calling someone out on their ad-hominem style as well as expounding on how it makes dialoge unlikely, is yet another ad-hominem attack. Provocation by definition tests patience, and only God has unlimited patience. I’d be careful how I called attention to the matter, but this in itself is not ad-hominem.
Jimmy, as I read your response yesterday, I have to say it was very good, but it (necessarily) required paying close attention and taking my time with it. I can see how an impatient person would use this as a reason to vent frustration and not give your response the thought it needs. After reading it, though, any insistence on JW’s conclusion as the necessary conclusion strikes me as spectacularly stubborn. I even spent a lot of time on White’s site to gather his other perspectives on Scripture that he might feel support his claims.
White writes: I am left wondering just who it is Mr. Akin is writing for. Surely it is not for anyone who is listening to both sides!
I have to say that I’m rightly offended by this. I actually spent quite a while over at his site, reading some of his “arguments”. While he does go deeper in responding to some Catholic arguments with which I’m already familiar, and I made sure I understood what he was saying to the best of my ability, I was incidentally still able to find fault with the arguments I read. Nobody can say I didn’t try. I love God very deeply and will follow Him wherever he takes me, and James White is NO JUDGE of my openness to follow God wherever Truth may lie. White simply has been unable to prove that his “church” is where God would lead me and he should accept that, and consider what he may be doing wrong. Criticism can be constructive even if it bruises one’s ego.
If this post is considered too harsh in any way, I don’t mind it being deleted for the greater good.
“If this post is considered too harsh in any way, I don’t mind it being deleted for the greater good.”
“I don’t think that calling someone out on their ad-hominem style as well as expounding on how it makes dialoge unlikely, is yet another ad-hominem attack. Provocation by definition tests patience, and only God has unlimited patience. I’d be careful how I called attention to the matter, but this in itself is not ad-hominem.”
Hi Karen,
Your post seems to be an indirect reply to my point. I agree with you and I see nothing wrong with correctives. Sometimes when person A points out that person B is being evasive or something like that it is misunderstood to be ad hominem. But I believe that such correctives are necessary sometimes in order to continue the discussion.
But I digress, don’t want to get ya’ll off into meta-discussion.
Jeff
I see folks like James White and Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating engaging in ad-hominen.
No offense, Jeff, but you may be in need of a refresher on what ad hominem means if you think Jimmy engages in it. I would agree with re: JW and KK, but not Jimmy. The current back-and-forth with JW is a prime example.
Hmmmm……It appears that Mr Akin has had to fire three posts off just to try to take down two of brother White’s. Sad, really. But that would appear to be the demands of the position Mr. Akin espouses.
“If Mr. Akin would like to take up the challenge that his compatriots have continuously avoided, that of demonstrating a single word of Jesus or the Apostles dogmatically defined by Rome that exists outside of Scripture, I’d like to hear it.”
This is an interesting challenge from Dr. White.
He wouldn’t consider the Word of God which is found in Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch as a satisfactory answer, would he?
Of course Dr. White knows that no “specific” word or sentence or epistle from Jesus or the apostles has been dogmatically defind by the Church outside of scripture. The Catholic Church has defined the Canon of Sacred Scripture to be closed, however. Would Dr. White do the same? If he did, would he be following Sacred Tradition?
Check out the two passages below:
Col. 4:16 – “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”
1 Cor. 5:9-10 – “I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must need go out of this world.”
Now, would Dr. White be opposed to reopening the canon if Paul’s “Letter to the Laodiceans” were found? Or if Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians (prior to 1st Corinthians) were uncovered? Is the canon opened or closed, Dr. White?
“Hmmmm……It appears that Mr Akin has had to fire three posts off just to try to take down two of brother White’s. Sad, really. But that would appear to be the demands of the position Mr. Akin espouses.”
More ad hominem… 🙁 not very convincing…
I think we can all take a leaf out of Jeff’s book.
Though he is “not a Roman Catholic”, and leans “strongly toward protestant theology” because he has “become more and more convinced of it” from his studies, he nevertheless agrees on his own allthingschrist.com website that non-canonical writings are very useful.
They “help visitors get insight into the life of the 1st and 2nd centuries of the church” since “some of the best historical information of those centuries come from the writings originating from those periods.”
On his website Jeff links to the writings of the Anti-Nicene Fathers, including the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans which inter alia states:
“Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
So before any of you castigate Jeff for accusing Jimmy of ad hominem comments, just remember this guy is doing the Catholic Church a favor by helping to remind his readers of the traditions of the early Church – traditions which endure to this day.
You chowderhead, Jimmy’s third post was a freebie to Mr. White giving him the opportunity to read a post he’d missed and modify his response. He didn’t “have to” issue the third post in order to “take down” White’s post, he graciously declined to take advantage of White’s rhetorical disadvantage by skewering a post of White’s written with incomplete information.
In fact, so far Jimmy has written only one substantial post to White’s two. Jimmy’s first post was a comment on White’s manner, not his arguments, and his third post an “Ahem.” Once Mr. White has had a chance to modify his second reply, Jimmy may also write a second reply, and the score at that point will be even.
In other news, it’s nice to see that Jimmy’s readers are honoring his request not to take cheap shots at White for missing something that anyone could have missed. Too bad White’s fans (or at least one of them) don’t recognize gentlemanly behavior when they see it, and respond by jeering when they should be appreciative.
Free Grace, you could be part of the reason White doesn’t have a reader comment section. Who would want people associating posts like yours with their readership? Assuming that you are for real, and not one of Jimmy’s readers having a joke… in which case, it’s pretty funny, but a little too subtle for a chowderhead like me. 🙂
ditto SDG. btw, it always take more words to correct an error than it does to make one. Thomas More complained of this some 500 years ago: It take me 500 pages to respond to all the mistakes they can make in 50, he once remarked, and then people tire of reading the corrections!
Wow, I didn’t realize it was “Whoever writes the fewest posts wins!”
Reminds me of that Monty Python episode where they have a boxing match to determine if God exists. The result: “God exists, by two falls to a submission.”
Aha, I just noticed that James White is a Reformed Protestant, believing in the Calvinist doctrine that God predestined some people for hell; in fact, that God CREATED some people KNOWING that they would go to hell and spend their eternal existance in utter torment.
If he can worship such a god, I know I can’t. That’s what drove me away from Protestantism in the first place.
But if he does believe in “preservation of the saints,” then James White can rest easy when it comes to MY soul, because I did “accept Jesus as my savior” in a Protestant church. According to Calvinism, I could now engage in witchcraft or become a mass murderer with no repentenance to the very end, and I would still enter heaven. Makes converting to Catholicism look rather innocent by comparison!
White’s characteristic use of ad hominems, insults, and jabs then begins. These are directed toward me, my readers, and Catholic apologists in general. Here are some samples: “in reading the comments left by Roman Catholics on this blog entry, it seems the majority of them are happy to go on second-hand research as well, a sad state of affairs”.
Hi Joye, did you take Jimmy’s statement personally? If you did I hope that you realize that you have just given a perfect example of what White describes as “happy to go on second-hand research”.Your description of James White’s view on Reformed Theology is just that. I believe (from first hand research) that he would be more than willing to explain what he really believes about your assesment of his views. You are welcome to call his program at 877-753-3341.
James White hasn’t done his homework. Haw-haw!
Hmmmm……It appears that Mr Akin has had to fire three posts off just to try to take down two of brother White’s. Sad, really. But that would appear to be the demands of the position Mr. Akin espouses.
Ahhh, theology by math…always a Protestant favorite. See also: The Rosary: Why Catholics Love Mary 10 Times More than Jesus.
Pardon me if this is way off– my only familiarity with Dr. White is from his two blog posts on this topic. But it seems to me that there’s really no disagreement on the broader topic here.
The basic principles seems to me to be that (1) Scripture is inerrant, (2) Divine traditions (if any exist) are also inerrant, and so (3) if a tradition contradicts Scripture, you know for sure that it’s not divine.
So what’s the problem? It seems like complications and disagreements come in only when you start assuming a priori (for purposes of this argument) that Catholic traditions contradict Scripture. I’m sure Dr. White has written voluminously on that elsewhere, but that’s not what’s at issue here.
Allow me to add that the numbered arguments above do not mean (4) that no divine traditions exist. But I don’t understand Dr. White to be claiming that, at least not in this “conversation.” He does characterize Scripture as a “higher standard,” which is obviously not in accord with Catholic teaching. But whether you regard Scripture as higher than(like Dr. White) or on the same level with (like Mr. Akin) divine Tradition, contradiction is contradiction.
Francis 03-
The underlying issue seems to be one of authority.
Protestants, generally, might say (because of an inadequate understanding of the priesthood of the believer) that each Christian has the authority to decide which Traditions are authentically Christian, as well as the authority to interpret Scripture any way they see fit.
Now, everyone certainly has the RIGHT to read and interpret the Bible any way they want, but the Church alone has the AUTHORITY to define and proclaim what is true Christian doctrine and what is not.
An individual might believe and teach any old thing, but they can’t claim any authority for their teaching, unless they claim that they were led directly by the Holy Spirit, which many in fact DO claim.
The thing is, they come to so many different and conflicting conclusions that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that the Holy Spirit is behind them all, yet they all make this claim. So, we have to look elsewhere (beyond claims of being led by the Holy Spirit) for real authority; to Apostolic succession, and to the Magisterium. The teaching office of the Church is an absolute necessity… the alternative is chaos.
What would the body of Christ be without a Mouth?
Jeff–
Have you heard of Peter Kreeft? He’s not an apologist, he’s a philospher, but I thought if anyone’s a respectful catholic writer, he is. You can find some of his lectures and writings at http://www.peterkreeft.com .
As I see it, the question about Authority boils down to this:
Did God found a Church? Or did he drop a Book out of the sky?
Fifteen hundred years after things got started, the smart set figured out that the Second answer was the right one.
I’ve long thought that Protestantism was the LEAST likely religion of the face of the Earth to be true.
BTW, I am the “Jeff” above, a different “Jeff” from the one that has been posting in this thread.
I’m with you, Tim J.
I guess what puzzles me about this brouhaha is that Dr. White’s blog entries seem to add up to the statement that “no tradition, whether or not it purports to be divine, is genuine if it contradicts the truths of Scripture.” All I can say to that, Catholic though I be, is that I agree comepletely. Of course, Dr. White would probably take serious issue with my ideas of how to interpret Scripture, which opens the whole “authority” can of worms you’re referencing. But as far as I can tell that’s just not what’s at issue here.
Correction: substitute “should be followed” for “is genuine” in paragraph 2, line 2, above.
Hmmmmm…….>>
<<
It would appear that Mr./Mrs. SDG is a lover of chowder. Don’t eat much more chowder please. I think you are full up to your eyeballs, as it would appear that you haven’t noticed that Akin still hasn’t dealt with the issues that James has brought up, but instead wants to dance. Let’s hope that it is at least to good music, since Mr. Akin appearently likes to switch red herrings as often as he does tunes. Just to keep the dance going, mind you.
Regardless, he still hasn’t dealt with the issue that James has brought up.
Now you talked about a freebie. You see, that is what makes Mr. Akin a pure amature. You see, he had to do one whole post just to talk trash (let’s face it, Mr. Akin is no Art Sippo when it comes to flatulant smack talk). And while he was trashing brother White, he had to speak out of the other side of his mouth to say how wrong it is to trash others.
Well, other than that, you really didn’t say anything. By the way, if Brother White did have a comment section, I wouldn’t post on it. I’d be too busy giggling at the fallacies put forth by the Catholics who would post on it.
In response to me, John Henry wrote:
“Ahhh, theology by math…always a Protestant favorite. See also: The Rosary: Why Catholics Love Mary 10 Times More than Jesus.”
Agreed. Most catholics do love Mary ten times more than Christ. And if they are fans of “True Devotion” or “The Glories of Mary,” then it is possible that they have taken idolatry to a new level.
Free Grace,
I must’ve missed Mr. White’s point concerning the “issue” he brought up.
Can you break it down for me here?
IC XC
Cearnaigh
Yes, Free Grace, and can you also point out a red herring in Jimmy’s response and explain in what ways he fails to answer White’s arguments.
“Agreed. Most catholics do love Mary ten times more than Christ.”
Free Grace,
Any credibility you might have had with me was lost with the above statement. You may not understand Catholic veneration of Mary, you may not agree with it, you may not think it is supported by Scripture, you may even think it is heretical — so be it; you are entitled to your opinion, and we can discuss those points. But if you *honestly* think that your statement which I quoted above is true, then you are laboring under some EXTREME misconceptions about Catholics. 🙁
Free Grace, I admire your guts. You do not allow your ignorance to curb your tongue(electronically speaking).
Free Grace,
I don’t understand your original point. (“Akin uses 3 posts, White uses 2!”) If Akin had simply combined his second and third posts into one (putting together the trash and the substance, as White does), would that make him less of an amateur, or make his apologetical points more telling? Or if he had done so, would we have to count the sentences or words in each post?
And in any case, what correlation do you claim exists between brevity and accuracy? If either Akin or White had a blog the entire content of which was a single statement “everyone who doesn’t go to my church is wrong,” that wouldn’t convince anybody. Sometimes you HAVE TO use more words to make your point.
“Agreed. Most catholics do love Mary ten times more than Christ. And if they are fans of “True Devotion” or “The Glories of Mary,” then it is possible that they have taken idolatry to a new level.”
Evidence? I find it kind of interesting Grace how you can see into our Catholic hearts and tell us who we love.
“…Dr. White’s blog entries seem to add up to the statement that “no tradition, whether or not it purports to be divine, is genuine if it contradicts the truths of Scripture.” All I can say to that, Catholic though I be, is that I agree comepletely. ”
True enough! It is impossible that authentic Catholic Tradition would contradict Scripture (properly understood) in any way. They are two sides of the same coin.
“…Most catholics do love Mary ten times more than Christ. And if they are fans of “True Devotion” or “The Glories of Mary,” then it is possible that they have taken idolatry to a new level…”
I love Mary BECAUSE I love Jesus.
Cheap Grace, Jesus established a Church. Why do you love the Bible more than you love Jesus?
I agree with Paul regarding Free Grace’s comment. Hummmm.. I thought Idolatry was the worship of someone or something in place of God.
In all charity, we honor Mary, we do not worship her http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm.
“Agreed. Most catholics do love Mary ten times more than Christ. And if they are fans of “True Devotion” or “The Glories of Mary,” then it is possible that they have taken idolatry to a new level.”
That has to be the singular most moronic thing I’ve ever read on this blog…and from someone claiming to be a christian no less.
Ironically, James White in debate even concedes that Catholics do not claim to worship Mary.
Free Grace, please provide evidence and examples to back up your statements.
(btw tempting it is to ad hominem but I am controlling myself – oops, is this in itself an ad hominem? didn’t mean to make it sound that way)
“Ironically, James White in debate even concedes that Catholics do not claim to worship Mary.”
I’m not James White. Now I know that you guys claim not to worship Mary. You guys will deny that till you are blue in the face. However, actions speak louder than words. That is why Protestants think you guys are deceived. Another work of pure blasphemy would be “THE PSALTER OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY” to go along with the so called “Glories of Mary”. “MIRROR OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY” is another dank work.
But I mean, really, look at you guys. You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary’s hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ. By agreeing with that ancient heresy, you guys are by implication sayin that Christ didn’t have a real human body. You guys base such ignorance on made up gnostic tales. Even Jerome in his laughable defense of the so called Perpetual Virginity disagreed with the contents of said those gnostic documents (Proto of James, Psuedo-Matthew), since what he taught is contrary to what is reported in those made up tales. The earliest apologists faught hard against those heresies that stated “Christ flowed through Mary like water,” only to have those gnostic heresies embraced later. But yeah, I know, you guys don’t call it gnosticism any longer, you guys call it a “mystery.”
The take the Immaculate Deception. Your church faught about for a looooooooooooooong time. There was every two sets of apparitions of Mary where in one she said that she was immcaulately conceived and another where she said she WASN’T immaculately conceived. But hey, what do you expect when you have made a diva and demi-goddess out of Mary!
Laughable and sad.
But that is the Catholic position for ya.
By the way, can any of you guys state infallibly if Mary died or not? Nope, didn’t think so! 🙂 So much for Catholic infallibility………:-(
“You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary’s hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ…”
Your ignorance is showing again, Cheap Grace. Catholics believe no such thing. That is NOT what is meant by Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Quit before you dig your hole any deeper.
“You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary’s hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ.”
You, Free Grace, hold to gnosticism by saying that Jesus existed, good and evil exists and that Judas was a disciple.
Same argument, Free Grace.
Just because there is a convergence of beliefs in some areas does not mean that cross-labelling can occur at will.
Too much rhetoric, too many protestant fairy-tales.
Very grimm indeed.
“You hold to gnosticism by saying that Mary’s hyman remained intact during and after the birth of Christ…”
Nobody in the Catholic church is required to believe this.
Free Grace,
Your comments certainly demonstrate that you have a deep dislike for our beliefs and think they are false, but they do almost nothing to explain why you hold these positions. Worst of all, I’m left with the suspicion that if someone posted messages responding to each and every objection you’re making, you’d just come back with a post that says “look, you used 17 posts to address my one– therefore you must be wrong.”
I feel as if you are here to gloat and sneer, rather than debate or evangelize. I hope that’s wrong, but your posts seem to indicate it.
You know, Free Grace reminds me of a flame-baiting troll named CT. She claimed to know more about Christianity than anyone, in spite of the fact that she never belonged to any organized Church. This person displays the same condescending and insulting behavior as she did.
“I’m not James White. Now I know that you guys claim not to worship Mary. You guys will deny that till you are blue in the face. However, actions speak louder than words. That is why Protestants think you guys are deceived. Another work of pure blasphemy would be “THE PSALTER OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY” to go along with the so called “Glories of Mary”. “MIRROR OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY” is another dank work.”
This is the equivalent of saying taht Protestants believe they can do whatever they want because they believe in imputed righteousness. Of course you don’t really believe in that, but neither do we believe that we worship Mary. You can make an arse out of yourself by insisting that you know more about Catholicism than Catholics do themselves, but you are just showing us how ignorant you really are. Try going to a Catholic church and meeting some Catholics in person. We really aren’t that bad.
I forgot to mention. CT has been banned by Dave Armstrong and others for her insulting, and obnoxious behavior. Any attempt at rational discussion with her turns into a mindless cheap shot fest. I’m not saying Free Grace IS this person mind you, but (s)he has this same know-it-all attitude.
“By the way, can any of you guys state infallibly if Mary died or not? Nope, didn’t think so! 🙂 So much for Catholic infallibility………:-(”
Your iron-clad logic overwhelms me. 🙂
Actually, Free Grace is close to the mark on the perpetual virginity thing… the dogma of the perpetual virginity states that Mary remained a virgin before, *during*, and after Jesus’ birth, and the “during” is taken to refer to the retaining of the physical sign of Mary’s virginity. (Cf. the book of contemporary theologian, Fr. John Saward “Cradle of Redeeming Love”; the relevant section is online here.
“CT has been banned by Dave Armstrong and others for her insulting, and obnoxious behavior. ”
She also has been banned by folks like the Pedantic Protestant and centuriOn. That tells you that she has got to be *really* obnoxious, because those folks are downright nasty.
Free Grace you are looking at this whole situation as some odd competition. First the 3 comments to 2 makes little sense. How many times did Jesus reply to one statement of the Pharisees? Not that Jimmy is Jesus and White is a Pharisee but I hope you understand my logic in that comment.
In regards to Mary the Most Holy Theotokis. First off, forgive him Father he knows not what he says. Second, as an Orthodox I to have difficulty with some of the doctrines prescribed to Mary by the Catholic Church… on one level you are failing to distinguish what the Catholic Church has infallibly defined and what has simply been the opinions of those within the Church on another level you are simply mistaken.
I don’t think that you are being intentionally misleading I just think that you have had a vitriolic education towards Catholicism that has blurred your understanding.
In the end though James and Jimmy are both part of the body of Christ. The point of this debate is not to prove winner or looser but to come to the correct understanding. If it takes 1000 comments to 1 it means little.
Chris,
The point is that that position has never been dogmatically defined.
Free Grace is no longer welcome on this blog. It is clear that this person is a troll.
Please do not feed the troll.
__,
I think it has… read the first few lines of Saward’s article. I don’t think we can expect a much-more explicit definition than we already have, but it does seeem that that’s what the definition meant.
“the “during” is taken to refer to the retaining of the physical sign of Mary’s virginity…”
Taken by whom? The fact that it might be taken that way by some does not make it dogma by a long shot.
Tim, first, look at the footnote to see who did take it that way: plenty of Fathers and Doctors. Second, if that’s not what it means, then what does “during” mean?
AFAIK, this is the standard understanding among theologians, including Mariologists.
Chris-
” …if that’s not what it means, then what does “during” mean?”
It needn’t mean that Mary’s birth canal miraculously reacted differently to birth than any other woman’s.
It might mean that.
It also might just be to clarify that the mere physical fact of the opening of Mary’s womb did not in any way disqualify her from the title “virgin”.
There used to be a great deal more concern about what constituted technical “virginity” than there is today. There is a Midrashic text, I believe, that made the point that a girl below a certain age who had been raped could still be technically considered a virgin, for the sake of her reputation, marriage prospects, etc…
The “after”, I presume, would confirm the tradition that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage.
Mary was a Consecrated Virgin, and remained so. The process of birth did not negate that.
Sorry, Mr. Akin, but I’m not a troll nor this CT person.
I also notice that there are some here who do not appear to know that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary’s hyman remained intact.
Regardless, though, if there is one person here who would like to debate the Immaculate Conception or Perpetual Virginity in private (that is assuming that anyone here would debate without their name being seen on the internet) I would be glad to refute your position. And if not, that would be fine as well. Whoever accepts, I will provide you my email. If not, then I would like to say that it has been nice talking smack with you today. I only wish it could have been serious.
Other than that, you ladies and gentlemen have a good day and a fine remainder of the week.
“That tells you that she has got to be *really* obnoxious, because those folks are downright nasty.”
I know the Pedantic Protestant to some degree in real life, and I can quite comfortably say that he is not “downright nasty.” In fact, he’s one of the more decent, kind, and charitable human beings I have encountered. I can’t say one way or the other about Mr. Turk, although I’ll point out that he was one of the quickest on the trigger er: Katrina relied. The point is that personal judgments regarding people based on limited online interaction are probably hasty. Please keep that in mind.
“relied” = “relief”
Oh wow. This is artistry.
To completely dismantle your opponent’s argument is one thing…
But to then lead him by the hand and help him understand how it happened.. all the while never losing a bit of gentlemanly charm… that’s a whole new level.
I’m saving both sides of this exchange. It will make a fantastic homeschool study on discourse and debate…
Posted by: John Henry
“No offense, Jeff, but you may be in need of a refresher on what ad hominem means if you think Jimmy engages in it. I would agree with re: JW and KK, but not Jimmy. The current back-and-forth with JW is a prime example.”
Hi John,
My wording was a little confusing and I apologize for it. I could have said it differently. What I should have said is:
I don’t put it past folks like them, however I am not making any attempt here to judge them on the matter. I am not reading through looking for ad-hominem. I personally feel that there is enough explained stuff in each of them for me to chew on and don’t feel distracted by any ad-hominem. In any case I wont read through them to point it out for the simple reason that ad-hominem is often very subtle. But I did think that some folks were adding comments that were less than useful and were ad-hominem and I was pointing that out. Keep in mind that some folks were adding some useful argumentation as well. It was those adding ad-hominem who were making it particulary annoying to read the rest. But then again me pointing it out is a part of my normal nit-picky approach.
Posted by: Verily319
“Have you heard of Peter Kreeft? He’s not an apologist, he’s a philospher, but I thought if anyone’s a respectful catholic writer, he is. You can find some of his lectures and writings at http://www.peterkreeft.com .”
Thanks ‘Verily319’ will look at it.
Jeff
As for interacting with “Free Grace” — Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!
“As for interacting with “Free Grace” — Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!”
Excellent point, which by the way, it looks like people are following your advice.
For anyone who is interested (and who might still be reading these comments), Jimmy apparently called James White’s radio show yesterday (or is it an internet radio only show? — I’m not sure). The post about this from White’s blog can be found here…
http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1399
And the radio show in question can be found here…
http://www.aomin.org/dl15.ram
(Jimmy comes on around 56:30.)
I’m just starting to listen to Jimmy now, after finally finding the start of his call, and I’m very interested to hear the conversation.
so anyone want to provide a summary. I checked the blog post, and I’m still underwhelmed by Mr. White’s demeanor. I don’t much listening to the radio show if it’s just more of the same.
Paul,
thanks for the heads up on the show and the time of the call.
The conversation on the radio show between Jimmy and James White is mostly civil, though White does get a few jabs in. Jimmy mentions that White might have missed the “You’re So Vain…” blog post. White responds that he did miss it, but that it probably wouldn’t cause him to change his response, though he will look at it. That’s about it.
Greetings,
I listened to the clip this morning. I am not a *huge* fan of Mr. White’s ministry, but I think that some of his points must be addressed by someone in the Catholic Apologetics community.
Mr. White, IMHO, does *not*, as I think Jimmy has pointed out, show that the passage from Mark 7 (and as it relates to korban): “Jesus’ plain teaching [is] that we are to examine all traditions by the higher standard of [Scripture]”.
Mark 7 doesn’t show this, but…
Having said that I think that some of the arguments that surround this should be addressed…
In the clip and in his writings, Mr. White has said that Protestants recognise non-biblical, binding authorities (so long as they are subject to the higher standard of Holy Scripture). I don’t know how consistent that this position is, but I think it should be a point of discussion between the 2 men.
I also think that someone in the Catholic apologetics community should start to address the Protestant challenge for Catholic to “produce just one thing that Jesus or the Apostles taught that is not recorded in Scripture”. I realise that this challenge is based on misunderstandings of what Holy Tradition is… how the Magisterium, Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the issues of authority and interpretation of these things are related, but it’s a common challenge from the Reformed and I think it needs to be addressed.
My 0.02…
IC XC
Cearnaigh
“produce just one thing that Jesus or the Apostles taught that is not recorded in Scripture”
OK, how about these…
1) Christian men may not marry two wives. You may think that this is in Scripture, but I challenge you to find it. Remember that in the Old Testament, God at least tolerated polygamy in some situations. The challenge would be to find where in the New Testament this practice is condemned, thus negating the Old Testament practice. You will find that a man cannot divorce a woman and then marry another, that a bishop cannot marry two women, and that a woman cannot marry two men. But I don’t think you will find that a layman cannot marry two women simultaneously. Yet all Christians accept this as divine teaching.
2) Public divine revelation (which Catholics would say is Scripture and Tradition, and Protestants would say is Scripture) is closed, and cannot be added to in the present day.
3) Revelation and 2 Peter are divinely inspired Scripture, but the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache are not. (This wouldn’t have literally been taught by Jesus, since these books weren’t written until after his Ascension, but it is taught by the Holy Spirit, and almost all Christian accept it.)
I’m sure I could name more — those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Paul
Cearnaigh,
My understaning–I’m definitely no authority is that the ‘material sufficiency’ debate is ongoing in Catholic circles as I seem to remember Mr. Akin referring to in a previous debate.
Tradition isn’t something that’s appealed to when we can’t find a proof text in the bible. However, tradition complements and makes sense of what is in the bible. I personally don’t think it is possible to have a Catholic dogma that isn’t susbstantiated in some way in the bible.
The protestant community seems also to adhere to this line of thought, even if subconsciously. After all, the concept of the trinity is not plainly taught in scripture to the best of my recollection. Although, isn’t it widely believed in protestant circles that the Holy Spirit is truly a divine person of the trinity?
In Christ
Paul,
I appreciate those answers… I think you may have the impression that I am not Catholic. I assure you that I am… and I have about as much sympathy for Mr. White’s theology as the God that his theology presents has for the “vessels of wrath” – so… that ain’t much.
I am not sure how Mr. White would deal with polygamy issue. I have heard that Luther could find no fault with it, but I have not seen this reference in the small portions of Luther that I have read… I would imagine since it is not directly condemned in Scripture that Mr. White could say…
1. He cannot be married to two women because he is recognised as a bishop in his ecclesial community.
2. That the traditional prohibition against ploygamy is an authoritative non-biblical tradition, but it’s not infallible.
3. That it’s the current law of the land – and we are bound to follow those laws…
I am sure I could think of some others…
As to your point #2… well… I am sure that Mr. White’s objection would be that there seem to be de fide dogmas that are based on Holy Traditions that don’t seem to appear until relatively late in christian theology (Bodily Assumption of Mary) – he would view this a something NOT taught by Jesus or the Apostles. And he would probably say that the burden of proof rest on “Rome” to show that these things were, in fact, taught by Jesus (and, or, the Apostles) and, therefore, should be things bound to the consciences of christians.
As for #3 – well… I would imagine this would probably bring up his position on “canon being a function of scripture” – I don’t really understand his argument here, but I can’t see how it’s biblical. It seems to be more to be a presuppotion based on a possible need to deflect CathOdox arguments about the canon and how they undermine SS. This teaching has never been shown to me from an exegetical standpoint so… I am not sure what to do with it.
I hope you are well…
IC XC
Cearnaigh
Hi Cearnaigh,
I didn’t know if you were Catholic or not. I just wanted to respond to your question. Whether or not James White likes those responses (whether they come from me or from other more “professional” apologists who I likely got these ideas from) may be another matter. 🙂
Also, regarding item #2: Even if White would argue that Catholicism introduces new teaching, thus violating the idea of divine revelation being closed, the fact is that Catholicism and Protestantism both DO teach this idea of divine revelation being closed. Yet this idea isn’t found in Scripture. So even if Protestants think that Catholics don’t live up to this teaching, the point is that they DO believe it, and it ain’t in Scripture.
Mr. White’s request for Catholics to produce an authoritative tradition not found in Scripture is a huge.. I’m not sure what the word is… trap?… logically flawed question?…. in any case it is something that sounds good to people but has no substance whatsoever. He starts out with the idea that the only teachings of Jesus that are indoubtedly authoritative are in Scripture, then he asks for an authoritative teaching of Jesus not found in Scripture. Nobody can provide this, because then Mr. White will say it’s not in Scripture so we can’t be sure it’s authoritative.
It’s almost like a racist asking someone to produce one white black guy.
(I’m not calling Mr. White racist, or comparing racism to his position or to this discussion, it’s just an analogy that seemed to make sense to me.)
Hi Shane, Jimmy was asked this question on the Bible Answer Man. I don’t remember how he answered but I will try to listen to it again. From that program I concluded that Jimmy and James are in total agreement on one thing. Dave Hunt is not a scholar.
Lol yeah, one reason may be that Mr. Hunt does not agree with Mr. White’s Calvanist theology. They had a debate about it themselves.
Actually Dr. White was very critical of Dave Hunts approach to Catholicism long before Hunt made known his view on Reformed theology. He considered Hunt’s methods very similar to Jack Chick’s. They did write a Debate book together but never had an official, moderated public debate.
James White’s most recent response (http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1400) is very unfortunate. I thought Jimmy gave a good model in his second response and a good opportunity to enter into an authentic dialogue about the topic. Yet, Dr. White seems unwilling or unable to remove the barriers that clearly impede the chance for meaningful communication. White is more suspicious than Nietzsche, but alas, not nearly as clever.
Mr. White’s apparantly going on vacation, but fortunately he left us with this:
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1396
Whoops, make that, http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1400.
But Patch already posted, so ignore this and my last post.
I’d like to address a few things that Mr. White said in his most recent post, and since he doesn’t have a comments feature on his own blog, I guess I’ll put it here.
White wrote: My “complaint” at this point was simple: if someone wrote to me and said, “Why does Jimmy Akin make such a big deal about [fill in the subject]?” and I did not have Akin’s books or was unwilling to even do a web search of his on-line materials, I would not reply by saying he was presenting a “common anti-Protestant ploy and here is why it is wrong.”
Of course that’s not at all what Jimmy said in his original post. He said that he didn’t know what White had said on the subject, but that a common Protestant argument is such-and-such, and here are the problems with that argument. In other words, he stated that he was interacting with a common Protestant argument — not White’s specific argument, which may or may not be different. Apparently this fact still isn’t clear to Mr. White.
White wrote: Given how much time they spend going after Jack Chick, are they seriously suggesting that Chick provides a deeper, more challenging critique of Roman Catholic theology than that offered by myself, or Bill Webster, or Eric Svendsen, or David King?
No, I think what they’re saying is that a LOT more people have read Jack Chick’s work, than have read anything by White, Webster, Svendsen, or King. Therefore, there is more of a need to refute Chick’s arguments, since more people (by far) are exposed to them.
White wrote: For now, I point out that any Roman Catholic apologist who is capable in church history, the original languages, and is published, would be of “unique importance” to me so that I would at the very least desire to be familiar with their argumentation.
That’s great, but I think that Jimmy and Catholic Answers are much more concerned about answering actual questions that people have about Catholicism, than in keeping track of each and every Protestant apologist as if debating were their only concern.
White wrote: Akin pretends to respond to a question about MY views
Again, Jimmy made no such pretense in his original post. Mr. White needs to re-read it.
White wrote: note that I listen to debates done by others all the time. I have taken note of Akin’s debate on the priesthood and, though I have yet to find time to do so, have repeatedly noted my desire to do a blog series refuting his presentation on the topic (and would, of course, be glad to do so in live, open, moderated debate at a location of Akin’s choosing in San Diego). I loved listening to Eric Svendsen take Gerry Matatics apart on the Marian dogmas. It is part of my work as an apologist to do everything I can to know what my opponent is going to argue before I debate him.
Again, Jimmy seems concerned primarily with answering people’s questions, concerns, and objections, while Mr. White seems interested only in debates. To each his own, but it seems that Mr. White is faulting Jimmy simply because Jimmy does not share his priorities regarding the importance of debates.
White wrote: But I do hope the reader is seeing a fundamental difference in viewpoint as to how to do apologetics as well.
Umm… yeah. That comes through loud and clear! And that’s why I read Jimmy’s blog rather than Mr. White’s. 🙂
1. He cannot be married to two women because he is recognised as a bishop in his ecclesial community.
Who’s this “he”? The question was not about a specific Christian man, but about Christian men in general.
I am sure that Mr. White’s objection would be that there seem to be de fide dogmas that are based on Holy Traditions that don’t seem to appear until relatively late in christian theology (Bodily Assumption of Mary) – he would view this a something NOT taught by Jesus or the Apostles
Err — this makes no sense unless he agrees with the de fide dogmas based on Holy Tradition.
If he doesn’t, and wishes to accuse Catholics of adding to the closed public divine revelation, one would say that he now needs double the answer to where in the Bible does it say that Revelation is closed. If you must test everything against the Bible, and the Bible gives him no grounds to complain of new doctrines, he is honor-bound, by his own defintions, to agree that there is no scriptural reason for NOT having such dogmas.
Thanks, Mary. The point you made in your second comment above is exactly what I was trying to say. 🙂
That’s great, but I think that Jimmy and Catholic Answers are much more concerned about answering actual questions that people have about Catholicism,
I did notice that CA seems to be focused more on entry-level apologetics for the common Catholic (which is good).
After a while, we graduate and move on to more advanced readings, but CA is able to remain at the beginner to moderate level, in the service of the next generation of Catholics seeking answers. That is pretty amazing to me, given how someone so densely-stuffed with theological knowledge like Jimmy could so easily lose his ability to speak to the common man.
Paul H,
You hit on exactly why White is engaging in ad-aominem and Jimmy isn’t. White’s character attacks are all based on false presuppositions and Jimmy’s aren’t, which means they aren’t character attacks. The logical fallacies in White’s latest response are astounding and if Jimmy “embarassed” himself (not to use White’s words) by calling in to his webcast, then White has done much worse with his latest post. I wish White would have spent more than 10 minutes writing it up, but like Jimmy said — hasty generalizations.
“ad-hominem” of course, tricky word!
<>
When is relatively late? 500? 700? Supposed the second coming doesn’t happen for another 20,000 years. People then will consider US the early church!
The point is that all christians belive in the sealing of revelation. It’s not written anywhere, so if it’s true, we know only by tradition.
close, sesame
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1401 🙂
Quote: http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1401
It’s sad to see that Mr. White is *still* operating under the mistaken assumption that Jimmy’s original post was an attempted response to White’s own specific arguments regarding the Korban rule. I don’t know how often Mr. White listens to Catholic Answers Live, but Jimmy makes comments like that all the time on the radio. Someone will say, “I found a web site that says such-and-such about so-and-so. What do you think about that?” And Jimmy’s response invariably will be something along the lines of, “I haven’t seen the specific web site in question, so I can’t comment on what it said.” He might then follow that up with a general discussion of the topic in question, but he won’t comment specifically on something that he isn’t familiar with (a policy that we all would be well-advised to follow). When I read his original post, I saw it as along those exact same lines.
If Jimmy had to go and research the latest writings of everybody who’s name came up in relation to a reader’s question, he would have little time for anything else.
There is no sense in trying to respond to every erroneous assertion that is floated by every self appointed expert, even in your field. On any question, there are far more ways to go wrong than to go right.
Jimmy’s approach is, I think, much more fruitful. He helps people to grasp the basics, so as to be able to respond to questions themselves, when need be. He addresses the underlying truths and their application, approaching other theologies in a general way.
He can’t put out EVERY fire himself.
It’s fun to watch when he does, though.
One more thing I’ll add here: One issue that I often struggle with when I have discussions or debates on religious issues is trying to remember that my mission is to love the person who I am talking with, and to help bring them to God and to the truth; my purpose is *not* simply to win an argument or to be right. Based on what little I have seen so far of Mr. White’s apologetic tactics, he at least *seems* to be more concerned with winning arguments than with winning hearts. And I think that’s unfortunate, since he obviously has a zeal for truth.
I am just amazed at how he continues to belabor this point. I can only interpret it as a kind of sacred mantra and indoctrination of his own in order to keep his readers at ease (that would presumably be a big priority for him I imagine, but alas I can hardly see it as helpful). The difficulty is that, perhaps true to his elitist credentials, James White can’t separate himself from the subject. There is no discussion of the Korban rule that doesn’t make reference to White’s own position (and he practically says as much) and I suspect that the person who asked for Jimmy to comment on White’s position must have been a huge boost to his ego. While the reader simply asked what the Korban rule was (with a follow-up question on James White which Jimmy clearly bracketed off), White can not possibly conceive of any discussion of the topic that doesn’t include his position regardless of whether or not the reader even mentioned his name. The biases and presuppositions that White works off of are downright crass and, yes, “nasty.”
This makes White an excellent debator, but a very poor and horrendous communicator. It is sad that he talks a lot about “meaningful dialogue”, but that he hasn’t the slightest clue as to what either of those words mean.
oops. I didn’t mean for my last post to be entirely in italics.
Thank you all – I am happy to have come across Mr. Akin here.
I had been reading James Swan on Martin Luther vs Dave Armstrong and Art Sippo etc, and it just happens that I came across a little booklet by Gerardo Di Flumeri on “Homage to Blessed Padre Pio”.
The Appendix has
1. the conditions for the Beatification
2. The decree of heroic virtues
3. The judgement of the seven theological consultants.
On the spur of the moment I asked James Swan if he would write up a “similar” for Martin Luther.
Yes, I know the thought is maybe just stupid but maybe you will care to share. Thanks Nik
trzsulymp aercov fyxrmi jwqezout yucb kgmzxf snxrzwup